In post 100, zoraster wrote:I think that a 10:1 ratio of first to second is totally inappropriate for a rolling determination of supposed skill. Like if you just want a fun "I wonder what our winnings would be if we used survivor" then sure. Keep it the same or very, very similar. But as a replacement or alternative measure to the elo system I think it'll be sorely lacking.
In post 101, hiplop wrote:in survivor often second place is a bad player
yeah this
second place (or third place) is often someone who was bad at the game and therefore got dragged there by someone else for the free win
In post 113, zoraster wrote:Technically xofelf has a lower win rate than TheBadOne and is higher ranked, but that's the difference between 6.25% and 6.67% so almost not worth mentioning
IT IS TO ME!
Xalxe: this is xofelf sometimes we call each other names and other times we share emotions
MattyP: Ur an enigma tho when it comes to circadian rhythm and the traditions we hold dear when it comes to the sun and the moon Get to reknow a xofelf here
Discord is faster than PMs or sitechat: xofelf#1697
My whole point is that people think making FTC is enough and I'd love a ranking system that weighted wins harder to try and accommodate for that but I'm not sure how to really do that.
In post 100, zoraster wrote:I think that a 10:1 ratio of first to second is totally inappropriate for a rolling determination of supposed skill. Like if you just want a fun "I wonder what our winnings would be if we used survivor" then sure. Keep it the same or very, very similar. But as a replacement or alternative measure to the elo system I think it'll be sorely lacking.
In post 101, hiplop wrote:in survivor often second place is a bad player
yeah this
second place (or third place) is often someone who was bad at the game and therefore got dragged there by someone else for the free win
I mean, either we operate under the assumption that places matter and thus are relevant for the sorting of results or we don't. If we don't, then a pure Win % is more appropriate than a misleading $ amount.
Because as it operates above, all you're doing is creating a system that shows Win % for those with at least one win and then something more meaningful for everyone else.
I'm not sure it is either! But then we should have a "Winner's Circle" or something that shows How many people have won and what percent of their games that comprises.
Pretending that money does anything other than show win percentage for those with a win seems dishonest to me.
meh money does something win % doesnt because like
ive won 3 times
ive played 12
3/12 aka 25% winrate doesnt look great
esp compared to bella winning 2/5
or jess winning 1/2
but when you consider that out of my 9 losses, 4/9 involved making merge it looks better?
i dunno i think $$$ amount is probably more indicative of someone's historical impact at least. like, even in the scenario where someone played 5 games, if they're placing in the bottom every time, that's gonna be overshadowed by one person making jury one time, right?
ive won 3 times
ive played 12
3/12 aka 25% winrate doesnt look great
esp compared to bella winning 2/5
or jess winning 1/2
but when you consider that out of my 9 losses, 4/9 involved making merge it looks better?
i dunno i think $$$ amount is probably more indicative of someone's historical impact at least. like, even in the scenario where someone played 5 games, if they're placing in the bottom every time, that's gonna be overshadowed by one person making jury one time, right?
Then list by total number of wins. Your merges and other finishes OTHER than your wins are largely irrelevant to your total $ won.
In post 138, CuddlyCaucasian wrote:This also gives more weight to someone winning in a 24-person game than someone winning an 18-person game, for example
Then list by total number of wins. Your merges and other finishes OTHER than your wins are largely irrelevant to your total $ won.
i sorta disagree
i dunno i think there's a system in which we say, okay
making FTC, there's x % of total value tied up in that
making jury, there's x % of total value tied up in that
then not making jury has a smaller value than either of the others
Last edited by xRECKONERx on Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It's a game, just have fun, find some idols, get your allies voted out, go home mid-jury, like the cool kids do!
"I, too, would prefer to know the Xalxe of my demise." - Felissan, 2022
- On this day in history: mundanity, and terror, and food, and love, and trees -
Xalxe: this is xofelf sometimes we call each other names and other times we share emotions
MattyP: Ur an enigma tho when it comes to circadian rhythm and the traditions we hold dear when it comes to the sun and the moon Get to reknow a xofelf here
Discord is faster than PMs or sitechat: xofelf#1697
Then list by total number of wins. Your merges and other finishes OTHER than your wins are largely irrelevant to your total $ won.
i sorta disagree
i dunno i think there's a system in which we say, okay
making FTC, there's x % of total value tied up in that
making jury, there's x % of total value tied up in that
then not making jury has a smaller value than either of the others
Your $ totals are made up 93.6% by your two first place finishes.